Share this

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is withdrawing her name from consideration to be appointed Secretary of State, according to NBC News.

"If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly - to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities," Rice wrote in a letter to President Obama posted on NBC’s website. "That trade-off is simply not worth it to our country...Therefore, I respectfully request that you no longer consider my candidacy at this time."

There’s probably a collective sigh of relief at the White House and Foggy Bottom this afternoon.

On one hand, Rice's closeness to the president would have allowed her real influence and might have persuaded the president to delegate, not dominate, which would have been a good thing for the nation’s foreign policy.

On the other, the White House is now spared a bitter fight and expending time, energy and political currency over the nomination with the sensitive issue of the attack on the Benghazi consulate at the center. And the State Department will likely now be led by John Kerry, a man whose temperament and disposition is likely more compatible with the softer edges and tones of the nation’s diplomats than the fiery and feisty Rice.

It’s too bad really. Susan Rice she would have made an intriguing choice and might have restored some of the influence in policy-making to the State Department.

I worked on a lot of nominations in my 21 years in the Senate, but have never seen a situation like this.

The idea that someone who had not even been nominated went to Capitol Hill to try and answer her critics' questions as a preview to a possible nomination was just a tad bizarre. And because she had not been nominated, there wasn't much that the administration could do to defend her.

And of course, the so called "Three Amigos" played the politics of this to the hilt, and cared nothing about the truth. The last time I checked, giving Richard Holbrooke the finger did not disqualify you from serving as Secretary of State.

Wrong question. Right-wrong we need a secretary of state, so let's focus on the task ahead rather than the history behind.

There are functional issues that the new secretary will have to deal with - are we doing diplomatic security right? Why is public diplomacy still a public embarrassment? What is effectiveness still a foreign concept in our foreign aid program? Why does the U.N. work against and not for us?

And there are substantive issues that need rethinking from a Russian reset that needs to be reset to dealing with an Arab Spring that's turned into an Islamist Winter to stopping losing the war on terrorism that we were once winning.

Let's get the nation's business in order now and muse on what might have been later.

Just maybe, President Obama does not want to talk about the terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of the United States Ambassador and three other brave Americans.

It is becoming crystal clear that the White House wants to sweep Benghazi under the rug. When you put together the Rice withdrawal today with a report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might not testify before Congress next week, and that the State Department’s own internal review might be withheld from Congress, it is clear the Obama Administration is trying to avoid accountability for the Benghazi attack at all costs.

Congress must now fully try to understand what happened in Libya. If the Obama administration remains uncooperative, then subpoenas must be issued and depositions must be taken under oath. The American people have a right to know how and why our U.S. Ambassador was murdered. If the Obama Administration refuses to cooperate with a full and complete investigation, then the United States Senate must block any nominee to be the next secretary of state until a full, and thorough, explanation to the American people is made.

Susan Rice would have been an excellent secretary of state and a worthy successor to Secretary Clinton.

I hope she reconsiders, because otherwise this is a victory for high-tech bullying. Republicans slimed and slandered her for nothing other than sour grapes over an election on which the issues they re-demagogued had no impact. It is a shameful day and a loss to our nation and the world that would have benefited by her service.

There comes a point when the political cost of nominating someone to a cabinet post outweighs the benefit from their service.

For Ambassador Susan Rice, that time had come.

Two problems existed, regarding her nomination:

1) Her confirmation hearings would have required her to answer all manner of questions about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, under oath. The White House could not have wanted that re-litigated, with wall to wall coverage on the cable news networks sucking up oxygen.

2) A New York Times op ed by an Africa-based blogger and journalist this week raised several disturbing questions about Rice's close relationships with several Africa despots, causing a firestorm on the left.

The more likely scenario is former Sen. Chuck Hagel to Defense, Sen. John Kerry to State and Rice could then be named National Security Advisor - a job which conveniently does not require Senate confirmation.

At the United Nations, Susan Rice has been busy implementing a foreign policy that has reduced America’s standing in the world and increased our reliance on multinational bodies where third world dictatorships carry similar weight to the United States. Unfortunately, Ambassador Rice has not merely been implementing Barack Obama’s vision, but she is a true believer in her own right.

Yet, in this case, Rice is now the victim of this administration’s incredibly poor handling of the disaster in Benghazi. If the White House had been more forthright and less political with the Benghazi terrorist attack, Rice would be on her way to Foggy Bottom.

Ambassador Susan Rice’s decision today to withdraw her name from consideration to be secretary of state is both tremendously sad and a complete recognition of the reality of the situation in Washington.

Susan Rice is fully qualified to be secretary of state. In fact, she was a shoe-in to be secretary of state. She would have sailed through confirmation - prior to September 11, 2012.

By now the story is well known. It doesn’t need rehashing.

It is sad that The White House, in one massive political blunder, all but destroyed Susan Rice’s chances to be secretary of state.

We know now that she had access to all the essential reports that indicated terrorist activity during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was assassinated, yet somehow, five days after the attack, she was advised and persuaded by unknown advisors in The White House to go on the Sunday news shows and tell America a false story.

The role of U.S. Ambassador is not high-profile even though it is certainly a high-level and important leadership position within an Administration. This was the first time many people in the U.S. really got a good and substantive look at Ambassador Rice. And what did she do? She told a tale.

I don’t blame her. She has a boss. Someone, presumably in The White House, told her to continue the administration’s whopper that the Benghazi raid was a spontaneous attack as a result of a You Tube movie trailer.

Sadly, in one brief morning of interviews, this shoe-in to be secretary of state disqualified herself from serving as our chief ambassador abroad.

Her confirmation hearings would have turned into a trois anneaux Cirque du Soleil full of accusations, heated testimony, and spinning wheels over what caused the 9/11 Benghazi attacks in Libya. This wouldn’t help the public, Democrats, or Republicans. It would keep Congress from dealing with more important issues, and could slow the GOP’s efforts to improve its image.

President Obama must nominate someone with a flawless reputation, few skeletons in his or her closet, and on good terms with the Republicans. John Kerry is the obvious choice because Senator John McCain and others have already given him their nod, but anxiety over the possibility that Scott Brown could win Kerry’s seat may lead to the nomination of some yet unnamed person.

Obama has only a short period of time, six to nine months after his inauguration, to materialize his campaign promises. After that, the 2014 midterm election campaigns kick in and his tenure goes twilight. He’s going to need to make some very wise hiring decisions if he doesn’t want to go lame duck too early.

Sen. John McCain, still smarting from his 2008 presidential loss, successfully smeared a good public servant. Meanwhile President Obama side-steps a theatrical political showdown. Because: Ambassador Rice would have been confirmed - even if it would have been ugly and bruising. And that would have been bad for the country and for the State Department.

Should he be nominated, and heaven knows President Obama owes him this one (see: National Convention, Keynote Address, 2004), Senator John Kerry would be confirmed by his peers easily. That would make Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren the senior senator from Massachusetts! And it would put outgoing Senator Scott Brown in a good position to return to the Senate in 2013, if he's elected in a special election.

So: Governor Deval Patrick: Call your office. Patrick may be the only Democrat in Massachusetts who could defeat Brown. And no discussion about political musical chairs would be complete today without asking the question one must always ask until further advised (though no answer is available): How will this affect Hillary's hopes for 2016?

Carlos SierraPresident of Sierra Public Affairs; Former Campaign Manager Buddy Roemer for President :

Ambassador Rice should be commended for putting her country first and withdrawing her name from consideration to be our nation's next secretary of state.

With her deserved criticism, and with her biggest critic (Sen. John McCain) joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the White House apparently didn't have the stomach for a contentious confirmation hearing.

In a time when the full effects of the Arab Spring have not yet been realized; with Syria at Civil War; with Iran and Israel on the brink of war; with Afghanistan and Iraq struggling to see the positive side of our invasion; and with the threat of China and North Korea in the Pacific, it is vital to our global standing to have a Secretary of State who can work with the White House and with Congress to face these challenges.

John Kerry would be the ideal nominee with the experience needed and with the ability to be confirmed swiftly by the U.S. Senate.

The nation did not win with Susan Rice’s withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State. It is a sad day when someone as talented and hardworking as Rice does not get the chance to defend herself against trumped up charges. The Senate, which needs to approve all cabinet nominations, should have heard her out. Instead, Rice was judged on television talk shows.

The only upside is that now President Obama who had gone out on a limb to defend Rice against Republican Senators who blamed her for giving a misleading report on the Benghazi, Libya attack on four Americans, including our Ambassador there, is not forced to nominate Rice to prove a point.

He can go back to the drawing board and find the right person for the complicated times we live in: someone with a strategic vision and bipartisan appeal in order to bring stability and continuity to our foreign policy. He may even reach over to the Republican camp, tapping such prominent geopolitical thinkers as former World Bank President Robert Zoellick or former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, to succeed Wonder Woman Hillary Clinton. Hers are certainly big shoes to fill.

Yes, Rice's potential nomination as secretary of state has been essentially dead for weeks, given the implacable opposition to her from significant senators, so her withdrawal today is just the death certificate.

She did the right thing by not putting the president in the position of having to make a decision about whether to put her name forward.

It is probably the right move, but it says far more about what has happened to the Congressional GOP and its new mode of simply throwing sand into the gears of government rather than working to move legislation and policy forward. It hearkens back to the days when, under President Carter, another African-American, Andrew Young, was the UN Ambassador and similarly a whipping boy for the far right's anti-foreign aid agenda. If Rice stays at the UN, her role may become parallel for the tea partiers and ideological Heritage Foundation types (e.g. Jim DeMint). Only this time, the sitting president has a record of foreign policy success and assertiveness that includes targeted assassinations, drone strikes and all, which alarm his liberal base even more than the conservative Right.

Smart political operatives pick their battles, and from a strategic perspective -- both in terms of policy and communications -- it is strange that the Rice nomination (and their Fox News-driven Benghazi faux-scandal) was the one the GOP chose. Further evidence that the party has lost its moorings; this is a battle won for them, in a war they show every sign they will continue to lose.

The president has an opportunity to appoint what I called a team of titans in his second term. Assuming that Rice's withdrawal clears the way for Sen. John Kerry, the president will be taking the first step toward putting together such a team that might help shake the typical second terms blues that plague most presidents.

The right didn't want her because of Benghazi. The left didn't want her because of her investments in Keystone and others. And anyone interested in good governance didn't want her because of her inappropriate relations with African dictators, putting her personal and financial relationships ahead of U.S. national interest. And we haven't even debated her role in Palestine's observer status.

Maybe it is time to recognize that she was manifestly unsuited and inappropriate for the job and had no constituency outside of the White House?

I am not at all convinced that Ambassador Rice would have been the best choice. But I know that the choice should have been the president’s, with the Senate giving advice and consent based on appropriate criteria, not the witch hunt to which Rice has been subjected.

Ambassador Susan Rice is a talented diplomat who will make a great contribution to American foreign policy in whatever capacity she serves. The sexist nature of some opposition to Rice - as if male diplomats have no rough edges - proves once again that no woman in politics can have a bad day without being labeled unladylike at best by critics.

Ambassador Rice did President Obama two favors: one, she pulled her nomination before he risked a filibuster; two, Rice was a canary in a coal mine for any other executive branch employees who may be promoted into the cabinet. Over 90 percent of the stated non-sexist reasons to oppose Susan Rice were based upon Obama policy. So cabinet candidates beware - Republicans lost the election but will treat Democrats - especially those from the executive branch - with all the ire they feel for the President regardless of nominees' merits or credentials.

For reasons that range from good to awful, her nomination was going to be a bruising. Even if the president won, he would have expended a ton of capital, and for what - and for what? While Rice has been a good public servant, there is nothing to suggest she would be a better secretary of state than John Kerry. Now, presumably, Obama will nominate Kerry, who will fly through. And Rice will live to fight - and perhaps be Secretary of State - another day. Everybody comes out looking like an adult.

Happiest man in Washington this afternoon: Scott Brown, who even as he is packing up his office can see a return to the Senate glimmering on the horizon.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to announce her choice to fill Sen. Jim DeMint’s seat at some point in the next week. Among those reportedly on her short list is Jenny Sanford, the ex-wife of former Gov. Mark Sanford. Jenny Sanford, a former Wall Street investment banker, has been known as a political force in South Carolina politics - and some experts say she could be a helpful pick for a party that lacks leading women.

However, there will likely be stiff competition from South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott, who is also on the short list. A tea party favorite, he would be the first African-American U.S. Senator from the South since Reconstruction.

Would Sanford make a good pick for U.S. Senate, despite never being elected to a political post? Which potential candidate would bring more benefits to the position?

Karen FloydFormer South Carolina Republican Party chairwoman; CEO, The Palladian Group :

Rumors are rampant about Sen. Jim DeMint’s replacement after his announcement that he will leave the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation. This is South Carolina, where politics can turn on a dime, and the rule is, “There are no rules”.

Conventional wisdom has it that the one person central to the mechanics of replacing the senator is the best person to serve in this role - Gov. Nikki Haley herself. There are three primary reasons: Gov. Haley has national standing and persona, women in the Republican Party are significantly underrepresented in Congress and she is ripe for the national stage.

Lest we forget, it was Haley who was selected prime-time speaker on the evening of Ann Romney’s address when she delivered an electrifying speech about her own background and small business experience. For the past year, we have seen Haley draw national attention and campaign across the country for Gov. Romney.

While there is an historic number of women sitting in the U.S. Senate, the Republican Party claims only four. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sen. Olympia Snowe chose not to run for reelection. Juxtapose this with the Democratic Party, which will have four new senators join their ranks with 13 sitting senators winning reelection. There will be a plethora of Democratic women to draw from to create a strong diverse ticket in 2016.

America is primed for Haley and she is ready for the national stage. 2012 was a year of firsts and should Haley choose to nominate herself, she would be the first Indian-American Senator. Putting diversity aside, Haley is prepared. In this bare-knuckled state she has proven that she can play political hardball. Any woman, any politician really, that can emerge from the state of South Carolina and command attention in the national spotlight is an untouchable asset.

DeMint’s colleague Sen. Graham has said, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

But, all of this makes too much sense. Remember, this is South Carolina where we should expect the unexpected.

She's lived politics from the inside out. She has handled media scrutiny with grace and aplomb. She is educated, smart and pragmatic. Her book title speaks of an internal ideology that has been lived.

The 2012 election demonstrated that the tea party adoption experiment by the GOP should be shelved if the GOP wishes to survive. Leave the tea party to the Libertarians where it belongs. Jenny Sanford represents a shot of "new blood" for the GOP.

If enough "new blood" derived from informed political pragmatism rather than untested, radical ideology can enter a pivotal government institution such as the Senate, then perhaps the nearly stagnant work of federal elected public service can start to move toward a dynamic reflection and extension of our democratic body politic.

To Gov. Nikki Haley: take a chance, and say to your appointee: "You go, girl!"

There's not a dime's worth of difference between these two potential senate picks when it comes to votes and the resulting policy outcomes.

On the surface, both Sanford and Scott make a statement about gender or race that the Republican Party desperately needs - but unfortunately it's the wrong statement. Each of these picks signals only more of the same extreme conservative stances that work against economic fairness and social justice for women and minorities.

Despite being very popular with Republicans across the country, Gov. Nikki Haley has been on somewhat shaky ground in her state since her early endorsement of former presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Had Romney won the election, her early support of his candidacy would have likely translated into a close working relationship with the new White House. And with her gubernatorial reelection on tap for 2014, Haley, a tea party upstart, would have found herself in good stead with the national GOP establishment. In short, she'd have been as safe from intra-party factional discord as any Republican incumbent in today's uncertain political times can be.

But elections don't always go the way of one's plans. Simply put, Haley doesn't currently possess the political capital to leap frog her party's pecking order with what would surely be perceived as a bold appointment of Jenny Sanford to the U.S. Senate. Haley, as close as she is to Sanford, must be loyal to her party and her tea party roots. That means picking Rep. Tim Scott - not by any means, a lesser choice.

As a freshman member of the House, Scott proved an effective advocate of spending cuts and an able spokesman for the South Carolina delegation during the debt ceiling debate in the summer of 2011. Further, having been reelected to the House this year, Scott has shown his party that he's a strong campaigner and one that the GOP can trust to pursue the required Senate special election contest in 2014 with everything he's got. Scott also has the soon-to-be departing for the Heritage Foundation Senator Jim DeMint's endorsement as his replacement. He's a fantastic pick - one Haley is lucky to be able to select.

Beyond this, Sanford lives in Scott's district and were he to move up to the Senate, Sanford would likely become the new favorite for his House seat. In fact, it seems possible that Haley was savvy enough to know that just by naming Sanford to her Senate appointment "short list" she would help Sanford clear the Republican field in Scott's district were she wanting to run for that office. And if Sanford is as whip-smart and political as all the rumors suggest, she may well have helped Haley hatch this two-step plan for her election. No doubt Haley would be well-served to have both Scott and Sanford ensconced as high-profile incumbents during this next year. And the three of them, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, would surely make for a formidable team for reelection in 2014.

Were all of these moves to take place, the Palmetto State - long the most conservative state in the Union - would also possess one of the most diverse groups of star-studded elected officials in the nation. Haley would surely come to be seen as the leading architect of this "still very conservative, but wide open to all minorities" GOP that the party is looking for as its "new" brand. And who knows where that good will might lead Haley post-reelection and come 2016.

In politics, zero-sum is not the optimal game. Haley has an opportunity for all-around, truly maximizing win (for her, Scott, Sanford, Graham, DeMint, and the GOP). She should grab it with both hands and start running towards the end zone.

Jeremy MayerAssociate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University :

I very much doubt that Haley would nominate Sanford.

It is terribly risky to take someone who hasn't been a politician and plop them into the blazing white hot spotlight of national politics. And because the pick would be so unconventional, Haley would be held accountable for missteps.

Sanford has, of course, experience as a political spouse, which is something like being a candidate. But it isn't the same. The dodges and retreats available to a spouse are myriad.

If Sanford runs on her own, and earns it, that would be entirely different.

Let's be honest: Either choice would be a huge help to a Republican Party that seems woefully unrepresentative of and downright ignorant about America's fast-changing demographics. But neither Sanford nor Scott's appointment will fix the fact the GOP policies are detrimental to women and people of color.

Both Jenny Sanford and Tim Scott would make excellent senators in their own way.

Many people do not appreciate the role of Jenny Sanford in Mark Sanford's rise. She was a campaign manager for him, she smoothed ruffled feathers within the party and with other people who were offended by Sanford. In many ways, she was the political talent of the couple. The fact that she has never been elected should not diminish her role. That said, Tim Scott's potential role would be quite significant and not be overlooked.

Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley’s first good move was to decide not to appoint herself to the Senate seat vacated by Republican Senator Jim DeMint. Now, the Indian-American Republican governor who definitely wants to make her mark on party and national politics has two trendsetting choices in front of her.

If Haley were to appoint Jenny Sanford, the wronged ex-wife of Mark Sanford who served two terms as South Carolina’s governor but left office tarnished by an extramarital affair, the appointment would be a great boost to Republicans in the Senate. In the 2012 elections, five new women were elected to the Senate, bringing the number to a record 20. However, while female Democrats jumped from 12 to 16, female Republicans dropped from five to four. Sanford, a political force in her own right, would be that crucial fifth vote.

On the other hand, Haley is also considering nominating a popular Congressman from Charleston, Rep. Tim Scott. A tea party favorite, Scott is the first black Representative to serve his state in Congress since the late 19th century, and he would become the only black member serving in the Senate from either party.

Haley should go with her gut on this one. Both choices would bring value to the state. It is a win-win for South Carolina.

The last thing the United States Senate needs is a new member who was a Wall Street investment banker or is a tea party acolyte. Wall Street already has too much influence in Congress so picking Jenny Sanford would be like bringing coal to Newcastle.

Tim Scott, like DeMint, would be a member of the "Do it My Way or I'll Blow Up the Country" Caucus. I know the governor won't appoint Stephen Colbert to the Senate, but I can always dream. Colbert would be a much better choice than Jenny Sanford or Tim Scott.

As the 100th, newest and most junior back-benching member of the senate, neither Mr. Scott nor Ms. Sanford would have much impact on the direction of the chamber very much for some time to come, if at all, and neither would change the Republican Party's image. That's going take more than one South Carolina senate appointment.

The question for Gov. Haley, I should think, is who would best represent South Carolinians? In the meantime, Republicans should stop the embarrassing nonsense that simply because a governor selects a woman or an African-American Republican for, say, an open Senate seat that suddenly Americans are going to think the party's reactionary policies are miraculously different.

Neither Scott nor Sanford would likely vote in any way that is not deemed mainstream conservative (whatever that is anymore), or in the case of Scott, right wing conservative. The problem isn't sugar-coating over the issues by flashing a woman or African American senator on a cable talk show, or cherry-picking the gender or race of its representatives, its the unpopular, indeed, un-modern policies of a party that, according to this week's NBC/WSJ poll, the public today sees as "bad," broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.”

Dewey ClaytonProfessor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

I think that Rep. Tim Scott would be a better political move for the state of South Carolina and the Republican Party.

There are currently no African American senators in the United States Senate, however, there will be 20 women in the U.S. Senate in 2013. The Republicans have a huge problem with descriptive representation: their political representatives reflecting the diversity of America. Much has been made by the political pundits of how the Democrats look and reflect the changing face of American politics which is in stark contrast to how the Republicans lack that diversity.

This would be a great opportunity for the Republican Party to show African Americans that they are willing to put one in the U.S. Senate. Moreover, the message I am hearing from Republican political leaders is that their diversity efforts need to focus on the Latino community. I have not heard any mention of the same outreach to African American voters. I think this is a tactical mistake.

The demographics in this country are changing in more ways than one. In addition to the country becoming a majority minority nation by 2050 according to most demographers, many African Americans, who fled the South during the Great Migration of the early 20th century, are now returning to the South and voting. What a wonderful opportunity for Republicans to start an outreach to them.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.